Whether There Was Sensible Pain in Christ?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true sensible pain in
Christ. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Since with Christ to die was
life, what pain may He be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of
His death, Who bestows life on such as die for Him?" And further on
he says: "The Only-begotten assumed human nature, not ceasing to be
God; and although blows struck Him and wounds were inflicted on Him,
and scourges fell upon Him, and the cross lifted Him up, yet these
wrought in deed the vehemence of the passion, but brought no pain; as
a dart piercing the water." Hence there was no true pain in Christ.
Obj. 2: Further, it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in
original sin, to be subject to the necessity of pain. But the flesh
of Christ was not conceived in sin, but of the Holy Ghost in the
Virgin's womb. Therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering pain.
Obj. 3: Further, the delight of the contemplation of Divine things
dulls the sense of pain; hence the martyrs in their passions bore up
more bravely by thinking of the Divine love. But Christ's soul was in
the perfect enjoyment of contemplating God, Whom He saw in essence,
as was said above (Q. 9, A. 2). Therefore He could feel no pain.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne
our infirmities and carried our sorrows."
_I answer that,_ As is plain from what has been said in the Second
Part (I-II, Q. 35, A. 7), for true bodily pain are required bodily
hurt and the sense of hurt. Now Christ's body was able to be hurt,
since it was passible and mortal, as above stated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 2);
neither was the sense of hurt wanting to it, since Christ's soul
possessed perfectly all natural powers. Therefore no one should doubt
but that in Christ there was true pain.
Reply Obj. 1: In all these and similar words, Hilary does not intend
to exclude the reality of the pain, but the necessity of it. Hence
after the foregoing he adds: "Nor, when He thirsted, or hungered, or
wept, was the Lord seen to drink, or eat, or grieve. But in order to
prove the reality of the body, the body's customs were assumed, so
that the custom of our body was atoned for by the custom of our
nature. Or when He took drink or food, He acceded, not to the body's
necessity, but to its custom." And he uses the word "necessity" in
reference to the first cause of these defects, which is sin, as above
stated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 3), so that Christ's flesh is said not to have
lain under the necessity of these defects, in the sense that there
was no sin in it. Hence he adds: "For He" (i.e. Christ) "had a
body--one proper to His origin, which did not exist through the
unholiness of our conception, but subsisted in the form of our body
by the strength of His power." But as regards the proximate cause of
these defects, which is composition of contraries, the flesh of
Christ lay under the necessity of these defects, as was said above
(Q. 14, A. 2).
Reply Obj. 2: Flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain, not merely
on account of the necessity of its natural principles, but from the
necessity of the guilt of sin. Now this necessity was not in Christ;
but only the necessity of natural principles.
Reply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), by the power of
the Godhead of Christ the beatitude was economically kept in the
soul, so as not to overflow into the body, lest His passibility and
mortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight
of contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the
sensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented.
_______________________